# TEXAS CHEMICAL COUNCIL 140 2 N ueces S treet • Au stin, Texas 78701-1586 • (512) 646-6400 • F ax (512) 646-6420

Nove mber 23, 2009 Mr. Stan ley M . Spruie ll Air Permits S ection ( 6PD-R) U.S. Environmental P rotection Agency 144 5 Ross Av enue , Suite 1200 D allas, Texas 7 5202

- 2733 RE: D ocket ID No . EPA

- R06 -0 AR -2 005-TX-0032 Do cket ID No. EPA -R0 6
- 0AR-2 006 -0133 D ocket ID No . EPA

- R06 -0 AR-2005-TX-0025 D ear Mr. Spruiell: O n beha lf ofthc Texas Chem ical C ouncil c rCC ), p lease find enclo sed comm ents o n the f oll owing thre e proposa ls issued by th e U .S . Environment al Protectio n A gency ( EPA) i n the Federal R egister on Septemb er 2 3,2 009:

• Doc ket 1D N o . EPA-R0 6
- 0AR- 2005 -TX

- 0032: Appro val a nd Promulg ation of Impl emcntation Plan s ; T exa s ; Revision s t o th e N ew S ource Review (N SR) S tate Impl ementation Plan ( SIP); F lexible Permits.'

• Docke t ID No. EPA -R 06-0 AR-2006

- 0133: A pproval and P romulgation of Implemcntation Pl ans; T exas; Revi sions to the New Sour ce Review (NS R) S tate Implementation Pl an (SI P) ; Prevention of S ignificant D eterioration (PS D), No nattainment N SR (NN SR) fo r the 1 997 8

- Hour O zone S tandard , NSR Reform, a nd a S tandard Perm it. 2

• Dock et ID No. E PA

- R06 -0 AR -200 5-TX-0025 : A pprova l a nd P romulgation of Impl emen tation Pl an s ; T exas; Re visio ns to th e N ew Sour ce Review (N SR) S tate Implementat ion Pl an ( SIP); Modification o f Ex isting Qualified Facilities Prog ram a nd Ge neral D efinition s. 3

I 74 Fed . R e g. 484 80-48495 (Se ptember 23,2009) . ' 7

4 Fed . Reg . 48 467-48478 ( September 2 3, 2009) . , 7 4 Fed. Reg. 4 8450-48467 (Se ptember 23 , 2009) .TCC is a statewide trade association representing ove r 70 chemical manufacturers with more than 200 Texas facilities . Our industry has invested more than $50 billion in physical assets in the state and pays over $1 billion annually in state and local taxes . TCC's members provide approximatel y 70 ,000 direct jobs and over 400 ,000 indirect jobs to Texans across the state . TCC member companies manufacture products that improve the quality of life for all Americans. The products manufactured in Texas account for 60 percent of the U .S . chemical production, which go into millions of consumer products . Chemicals are the state 's largest export with over $30 billion each year. TCC has a keen i nterest in ensuring that the Texas air permitting programs are ultimately approved by EPA as our member companies utilize or are subject to the permitting programs and requirements that EPA is proposing to disapprove through its rulemakings. Thank you in advance for consideration of these comments . Please do not hesitate to contact me at (512) 646- 6403 or wisdom @txchemcouncil.org if you need additional information . Yours respectfully ,

Chr istina T. Wisdom Vice President & General Counse l

### Comments of the Texas Chemical Couucil Docket ID No. EPA -R06 -0AR-2005 -TX-0032 Docket ID No. EPA -R06-0AR- 2006-0133 Docket ID No. EPA-R06-0AR -2005-TX-0025 Prop osed on S eptember 2 3, 2009 74 Fed. Reg . 48450 - 48495 I. I NTROD UCTION In three p ropo s als th at w ere p ublished i n the Fede ral Reg ister o n S eptember 23,2009, th e U.S . E nviro nm e nta l Prote ction Age ncy (E PA) p ropo s ed to di sapprove n umerou s Texas C o mmiss io n o n E nv ironme nta l Q uality (TCEQ) State Impl ementation Plan ( SIP) r evision s ubmittals w hich date b ack 15 ye ars a go to 1 994. T he e ffect of s uch wid espread di sapp roval co uld be to nullif y ex is ting T exas air permitting pro grams s uc h as the s tate Flexible Permi ts a nd Q ualified Faci lities Programs a nd certain state-i ssued St andard Permit s, in addition to thre atening th e v iabilit y o f the s tate 's ex isting Prevention o f Si gnificant Dete rioration ( PSD) program and N ew So urce Review (N SR) R eform initia tives . EPA s tated th at a ll three a ctions should be read t ogether "bec ause the p ermit s i ssued under these State pro grams are the vehicles for r egulating a s ignificant un iverse of thc a ir e missions from sourc es in Te xas and thu s direc tly imp act the ab ility of th e St ate to ac hieve a nd m aintain atta inment of the N ational Ambient Air Qual ity St andards (N AAQS) and to protect the health of the commun iti e s wh ere th e s e so urces are 10ca ted .,,1 

### It w ould b e irresponsible a nd s hort -s ighted fo r th e p rograms to be an aly z ed i n a v acuum , ap art f rom a th orough a nd d etailed an alysis o f thc dra matic improvement s th at h ave o ccurred i n ai r qu ality in Texas ove r the p a s t 15 years , particularly in th e H ouston-Galveston-Bra zoria ( HGB) nonattainment area , w here the m ajority of TCC m embers o perate. With regard to the NAAQ S fo r o zone, it is important to fir s t h ighlight the c ontributors to ni trogen ox ide (NO,) e mi ssio ns in the area . In the H BG n onattainment area, 55 % o f NO , emi ssions co me fro m o n a nd off -road mo bile s ources, 3 5 % are from p oint so urce s, an d 1 0% are fro m area 

### source s . ' Notwit h sta nding the c hemical industry's lesser ro le to m obile s ources i n the c ontribution of NO , e miss ion s in the HGB nonatt a inment area, TCC member c o mpanies have w orked w ith other i ndustr ial p artner s to in ve s t m ore than $3 b illion s ince 200 1 to ac hieve a n 80 percent reduction o f NO , fro m po int s ources . A c ritical fact or i n th is accom plishment is TCEQ 's c ommitment t o r educe em issions through a ro bust a ir pe rmitt ing process . For ex ample, the Fle xible Permits Program a llows fo r vo luntary and mand atory permittin g r equirements f or pre viously grandf athcred fac ilities. Thi s pro gram has resulted in o ver 260, 000 tons o f reducti ons in a ctual emi ssions f rom o therwise
I 7 4 Fed . R eg. a t 4 8483 . 2 Data re cei ved f rom TCE Q 's 2009 11 GB NO x E miss io ns In ventor y . Iunregulated gr andfathered facilities either through the a ddition of control s or the shutdown of the se f acilities . ' Additionally, in the HGB non atlainment area, the d esign values for b oth th e 1- hour and 8-hour o zone s tandards have been dropping steadily between 1999 and 2009 from 203 parts per billi on (ppb) to 127 ppb, and from 118 ppb to 84 ppb , re spectively." Similar improvements have been obtained in all parts of Texa s . Decreases in air emission s of thi s magnitude in the midst of rapid popula tion growth are remarkable accomplishments in improved air quality that mu st not be 

### ignored , Furthermore , the Houston area ha s the most exten sive air monitoring network in the countr y. By 2008 , almo st a ll the monitor s in Houston were in attainment with the 0 .08 p arts per milli on (ppm) 8-h our ozo ne standa rd. With regard to emi ssions of v olatile o rganic c ompounds ( YOCs) , in 2 008 n o monitors i n Harris Co unty were above the lon g-term effec ts s creening level f or b enzene, a nd all monitor s in th e Ho uston area s howed a decrea se in avera ge ben zene concentrat ions from 2005- 2008. 5 T he TCEQ al so maintains an Air Pollutant Watch Li st (APWL ), which is a list of areas in T exas where sp ecific pollutant s are mea sured at level s of concern. The purp ose of the APWL i s to heighten public awarenes s in areas of concern for interested pa rties , encourage ef forts to reduce emi ssions, enable TC EQ to most effectively manage its re sources and assi st in the review of air permits . Currently, there are 12 APWL areas in II Texa s countie s . Over the pa st two years , six pollutants have b een removed from the APWL , and s even more pollutant s in five APWL area s arc propo sed to be removed later this year. Ag ain, improvement in air quality of this magnitude in a s tate with increasing popul ation and a so und e conomy is an impr essive achievem ent to s ay the lea st. II. THE FL EXIIIL E PERMITS PROGRAM In the prop osed rule , EPA prop oses di sapproval of the Te xas Flexible Permit s Pro gram for failure to meet the requirement s f or a substitute Major NSR SIP revi sion . In addition to the program' s alleged failures to prote ct Major NSR SIP requirement s, EPA s tates that it c annot find that the program, as a Minor NSR SIP program, will en sure protection of the NAAQS and noninterferen ce with the Texas SIP control strategies and reasonable further progress (RFP) . TCC s upports full approval of the s tate's Fle xible Permits Program . C ontrary to EPA's allegation s, th e Te xas Fle xible Permit s Progr am i s a robust, legally defensible program that i s intended t o add operational flexibility through th e u se o f emis sion caps, certain control technol ogy a nd o ther o perational pract ices to achieve e mission redu ctions w ith the u ltimate g oal

J TCEQ U pdate o f A ir Q uality in Texas , p re s ented b y Su sana Hil debrand, P . E . , TCEQ C hief E ngineer, Oc tober 3 0, 2 009.

, Id . , Id . 2of h aving a w ell-controlled facil ity after the fin al c ap is implemented . T o that end , a Flexible P ermit i s an alternative to the trad itional Minor NSR authori zation 6 an d is not a mechanism used to determine federal NSR applicab ility, s uch as PSD or nonatt ainment. The Program d oes not allo w ne w stati onary sources to c onstruct w ithout a Ma jor NSR permit if a de term ination is made that one i s nec essary. A s c learly s tated in TC E Q' s F lexible Pe rmits Program rule s, if a f acility applyin g for a Fl exible Permit is loca ted in a nonattainment area , the fa cility shall compl y wi th all applicable requirements c oncerning n onattainment re view. ' Like wise, if a facilit y applyin g for a F lexible Permit i s loca ted in an att ainme nt area , the facil ity s hall c omply w ith all a pplicable PSD requi rements ." Fe deral app licability determin ations arc c onducted accordin g to federal rules and re quireme nts, including deter mining baselin e emis sions, th e proj ect e missions increa se, and the net e missions increa se. Under the Program, B est A vailable Co ntrol T echnology (BA CT) is used to establi sh the applicable caps ," and th e review i ncludes a NAAQS an alysis i fPSD is trig gcred.! " Addition ally, th e review include s lo west ac hie vable emi ssion s rate (LAER) co ntrol te chn ology and the use of offs ets if nonattainment re view is triggered . II The F lexible Permit s Program tran sparen tly requ ires that an N SR applicabilit y dete rmination be made , and the Program is not st ructured to circum vent Major N SR S IP requirem ents. E PA ha s al so not ed the followin g s pecific i ssues w ith th e Te xas F lexible Pe rmits Program . TCC ' s respon se follow s each o f the noted co ncerns .

• EPA states that thc Program is inconsistent with thc intent that Flexible Permits will only apply to minor sources, existing grandfathcrcd sources and to minor modifications. 

### In light of that analysis, EPA examined thc program as an equivalent to a Major NSR Program and determined that 

### it was an inadequate equivalent . EPA also stated that there are no provisions 

### in the Program that require a Major NSR applicability determination prior to construction and/or modification. 12 Fir st, the f ederal C lean Air Ac t an d the corre spondin g re gulations are v irtually s ilent on s pecific direc tion to th e states as to how each state's minor NSR pro gram is to be con structed

6 3 0 TA C § 11 6 . 710(a) . 7 3 0 TA C § 116 . 711(8) . '30 TAC § 1 16.711(9). 9 3 0 TAC § 11 6 . 716(a)(I ). 10 30 TAC § 116.161. 11 30 TAC §§ 116. 150(0)(1)-(4), 1 16.1 51(0)(1)-(4). 1 2 74 Fed. R eg . at 4 8482 . 3a nd i mpleme nted. 13 Th at sa id , s tates are g iven s ignificant flexibility in the i m pleme ntation of s uch p rograms. No tably , E PA rece ntly recogni z ed the imp ortance of this nece ssary fl e xibility in t he f ederal Fl exible Ai r Permittin g Rul e. 14 In T exas, f or exa mple, thi s fl ex ibility ha s s erved as th e co rnerstone f or a s uccess ful a ir p ermitting p rogram th at has re sulted in tremendous e nvironmental ben efit. T CEQ rul es allow for the u sc o f a Fle xible Permit for minor s ource facilities at a maj or so urce si te . TCE Q rule s s tate that " [a] per son m ay o btain a fl exible permit which a llows f or ph ysical a nd o perational c hanges as p rovided by thi s s ubchapter as an a lternative t o ob taining a ne w so urce review p ermit und er § 11 6 .11 0. .. A person m ay obta in a flex ible p ermit un der § 116.711 of thi s title f or a faci lity, gro up of faci lities, or acco unt bef ore any a ctual 

### work is b egun . .. ,,1 5 A review of § 1 16 .1 1 0 (un der Subc hapter B , New So urce R eview P ermits ) lis ts the Flex ible Permit as one o f many pe rmitting o ptions required before wo rk is beg un on (( faci lity, a nd notably, th e Flexib le Per mit is li sted a mong th e ot her m inor so urce p ermitting o ptions, s uch as Permits b y Rul e a nd St andard Permits. A s no ted above, § 11 6.711 requires th at facilities are s ubject to nonattainment a nd PSD r eview as applicable . It is cle ar th at TCEQ 's rul es d o not int end fo r the Flexible Perm its Pro gram to se rve as an equivalent to a Major NS R Pro gram. It i s a lso e vident th at T CEQ rule s require a M ajo r NSR appli cability det ermination prior t o c onstruction a nd/or modification.

• EPA s tates that the Texas definition of " modification" is not clearly at least as s tringent as th e definition of " modification" in EPA 's Major NSR SIP rule s. EPA believes that the stat e ha s failed to s ubmit a demonstration s howing how it s u sc of "modification" is at least a s s tringent as the federal definiti on of " modifieation .,,1 6 T CEQ ru les prov ide tw o se parate "mo difi cation" definitions . B riefly, a " major m odification" 17 i s a proj ect ac tion that triggers federa l N SR re view (PS D o r No nattainment) . In co ntrast , the TCEQ 's min or so urce pro gram u ses the definiti on of " modification of a n e xisting faci l ity" 1 8 to d eterm ine if a propo sed c hange trigge rs min or N SR rev iew, and the

13 C AA § I I 0(a)(2)(C) ; 40 CFR §§ 5 I.160 -51. I 6 4.
" 74 Fed . Reg. 5 I4 I8 -5 1440 (Oc tobe r 6 , 2009) . 15 3 0 TA C § I 16 .710(a) (e mpha s is added) . 16 74 Fed. Reg . a I48488-48489 . 17 30 TA C § 1 16 .12(18), defined a s "a phy sical c hange 0 1' chan ge in the method of operation of a major s tationary s ource that causes a s ignificant projec t em issions increa se o f a fed erall y r egulated new so urce review pollut an t, and a signific an

t n et emiss ions in crea se of a federally regula ted n ew s ource review pollu t ant which t riggers fed era l review , s uch a s PSD or nonattainment r eview. " 18 30 TAC § 116 .10( 1 I) , defi ned a s " a p hy sica l change 01' c hange in the method of opera l ion of a fac ility whic h causes a ll i ncrea se i n th e amo unt of any a ir conta minant e mitte d by the fac ility into thea tmo sphere or re sult s i n an e mission of a ny air co n ta minant not p revious ly e mi tted ." 4scope of the change is not limited to pollutants that are federally regulated. TCEQ has explicitly stated that the Flexible Permits Program rules and the definition of "modification of an existing facilit y" do not act as a shield for federal NSR permitting." Again , the Program requires a review of federal NSR applicability 

### steps ." For projects that trigger federal review , all required demonstrations, such as BACT , de minimislNAAQS modeling, increment modeling, and toxicological modeling are conducted. For projects that trigger nonattainment review , LAER and offsets are 

### required ." It is therefore difficult to ascertain how EPA can allege that the state's definition of " modification" is not at least as stringent as the federal definition.

• EPA is 

### concerned that thc definition of "account" may 

### result in an 

### emissions cap that could apply to 

### multiple major stationary sources, thus 

### circumventing Major NSR t ti , 22 prccons rue IOn review, EPA notes that the Texas SIP defines the term " account" to "include an entire company site, which could include more than one plant and certainly more than one stationary source . . . Accordingly , under a Flexible Permit , a single emissions limitation in the emission cap could apply to major stationary sources, and if emissions remain below the emissions limitations in the emission cap, Major NSR preconstruction review is not triggered.t'':' Under TCEQ's rules, the term " account" means "all sources that are aggregated as a site . ,,2 4 Under Texas law, the term "source" means "a point of origin of air contaminants , whether privatel y or publicly owned or 

### opcrated . ?" When analy zed, it is clear that the term " account" could not include more than one plant or more than one stationary source as EPA has interpreted the Texas definitions. An account is clearly limited to the source or s ite. Furthermore, the Program does not circumvent Major NSR preconstruct ion review. A Flexible Permit i s a Minor NSR permit authorization that is utilized in some ca ses to cover minor source facilities at a major source site. Where facilities or pieces of equipment are authorized under a PSD and lor Nonattainment permit , those federal requirements still apply .

1 9 Letter from Richard Hyde, Director , TCEQ Air Permits Divi sion to J eff Robinson, Chief, EPA Air Permits Section , August 3 0, 2007. 2 0 30 TA C § 116. 711(8) and (9) . 2 1 Letter from R . Hyde to 1. Robinson , Augu st 30 , 2007 . 22 74 Fed. Re g. at 48489. 23 td. "30 TAC § 101.1(1). 25 TE X

. H EAL TH & SAFETY CODE § 382.00 3(12). 5No fa cilities lo cated a t th e so u rce a re e xemp t fro m f ederal permi tting re qu irements, i ncluding Maj or N SR pre constru ct io n review where applicable. Fl exibl e P ermits u suall y co ntain two emi ssion s caps - an initial em ission s cap a nd a final emi ssion s ca p. The initial e missions cap i s th e s tarting point pr ior to an y phy sical o r operational changes and i s ba sed on the control s i n place at the tim e the Flexible Permit is fir st i ssued. The final emi ssions cap applie s afte r all control up grade s have been pnt into pl ace and i s ba sed on th e applic ation o f B ACT to a ll fa cilitie s c ontributing to an emi ssions ca p .26 Additi onally, in terim cap s a re so metimes utili zed , which p rovide emis sion s limit s at va riou s s ta g es betw een th e impl ementati on of the ini tial e mission s ca p a nd the fin al emI SS IOn s cap . Fl exib le P ermit s al so u se i ndividual emi s sion s limitations for eac h po llutant no t c overed by an e mi ssio n s ca p for f acilities c overed b y the F lexible Penlli t. 27 Ind ividual e mi ssio ns limit ation s ma y a l s o b e u s ed in co njunction w ith the e mission s ca p w hen it is ne ce ss ary t o 

### e n sure p rotection of the NA AQS . Sp ecific e mission limits that a n individual fa cilit y ca nnot exceed m ay al so be e stabli sh ed to en sure th at federal p ermittin g r equirements are not circumv ented. i " Finall y, a ll Flexible Permit s require permit hold er s to c omply with s ta te and f

ederal rul es , re gulation s a nd c ommis sion o rders , and condition s a s preceden t to th e g ranting of t he p ermit.i"

• EPA states that the Flexible Permits Program fails to adequately show how emissions increase s arc calculated for the entire major s tationary 

### sourc e if the source is subject to two diff erent permitting regulations

- the s tate Flexible Permit s Program regul ations and 

### federal Major N SR SIP , ·egulations . J O In th e pr opo s al , E PA remarks that n ot all emi s s ion p oints , unit s f aciliti es , m ajor s ta tio nary so urce s, mi nor mod ification s to an ex isting m aj or s tationary so urce, a nd s o f orth, a t a s i te a re req uired to be in clude d in t he so urce 's Fl exible Pe rmit. Notably , E P A acknowledge s th at thi s i s not p erse inc onsi stent with the C lean Air Ac t a nd E PA's Major N SR SIP 

### requirem ents." How ever , E P A expres s ed i t s co ncern th at th e Program f ails to ex plain h ow phy sical a nd op erational c hanges th at o cc ur und er a Flexible Pe rmit emi s sions c ap arc evalu ated for M ajor NSR a pp lica bili ty.

26 Lett er f rom R . Hyde to J. Robinson , A ugust 30 , 2 007; see also 30 T AC § 116.7 16(a) . 27 3 0 T AC §§ 11 6 . 7 15(b) and 11 6 . 716(b) . "3 0 T AC § 11 6 . 715(c)(I ) a nd ( d) . 29 3 0 TA C § 11 6.7 15(c)(10) . 3D 7 4 F ed . Reg . a t 4 8489 . 31 Id . 6Aga in, the p ermittin g au thorization meth o d u sed at a so urce d oes not exe mpt any of the facili ties loc ated a t that s ource fro m federal permi tting req uirements . I f a s o u rce h a s a flexibl e perm it th at d oes not c on tain a ll thc faci litie s located a t th at s ource a nd a projec t w ithin the flexible pe rm it trigge rs netti ng , a ll faci lities (under th e cap and o utside the c a p) a t thc s ource are eva luate d to de t e r

mine whethe r a ne t s i gnifi can t e mi ssions i ncrea s e a t the s o u rce ha s o c c urred. If the re s ultin g net em issio ns i ncrease i s s ignificant, fede ra l NSR i s 

### triggered. " • EPA is concerned that thc Fl exibl e Permits Program would authorize cxi sting allowable, rather than actual emi ssions , to bc used to determine applicability in violation of the Clean Air' Act and thc Major NSR SIP requtrcmcnts r" F lexible Permit emi ssion c aps arc b a s ed o n a llowable emi ssion s. T he fin al e miss ion cap s arc ba sed o n th e application of BA CT at the time the Fle xible Permit i s created . In man y s ituations , the application o f BA C T to the facilities s ubject to the emi s sion c ap re s ults in a n a llowable that i s low er than the pre-change actual emi ssions , If netting is re quired, a nd the netting a nalysis reveals an emi ssions increase , then the project i s c onsidered a m ajor modification a nd th e appropri ate federa l NSR p rogram i s 

### tri ggered . " Wh en T CEQ is evalu ating emi ss i o n s i ncrea ses o n a proje ct level, the Progr am requires th e u s e o f a c tu a l bas eline e mission s to determ ine w hether a proj ect w ill re su lt i n a n in c rea se tha t triggers NSR applicabilit y.

• EP A is concerned with thc adequacy of the recordkccping, reportin g, tracking and monitoring requirements of th c Flexible Permits Program ." T CEQ' s Fle xib le P e rmit s P rog ra m rul es c o ntain recordkee ping re quirements a nd a lso s p ecify th at add iti on al requ irement s m ay be sp ecified i n s pecial c ondi tions a ttac h ed to the Fle xible Pe nn it. 36 Ge nerally , these s pecial c onditions may incl ude c om p liance st ack t e stin g , periodic s tack te s ting , con tinuou s emi ssions monito ring (CE M S) whe re appro p ria te a nd ot he r p arametric m onitorin g requireme nts , alo ng wit h recordke eping to en sure th at th e p erm it holder can comp ly with th e e mi ss io n caps and B AC T. 37 Be cause there is a s ignific ant

" Letter fro m R . Hy de to J. Robin so n, A ugust 3 0, 2 00 7 . " 74 r ed. Re g . at 48 490 . " L e tter f ro m R . Hyde to J . Robins on, Au gust 3 0, 2007 . " 7 4 r e d. R eg. 48 490 . " 3 0 TA C §§ 11 6 . 7 15(c ) (6) a nd (d) . 37 L ette r fro m R. Hyde to J . Rob inso n, Au g us t 3 0, 2007 . 7dif ference in the t ypes of s ources that apply f or a Fle xible Permit , it is difficult for the TC EQ to impl ement rulemakin g to incorporate every typ e of rec ordkeeping , mon itoring and tracki ng requirements tha t may appl y. Attempting to incorporate thes e variable c omponents into o ne comprehens ive r ule c ould s eve rely limit T CEQ 's a bility to a dequatel y impl ement the se requirement s.

• EPA finds that the publie participation aspects of thc Flexible Permits Program arc 'I t 3 8 mar equa c. T C EQ Executive D irector Mark Vi ckery ha s already ind icated to EPA th at he will pre sent to the commission in December 2009 a propo sed public par ti cipation rulemaking as permitted under ex isting st atutor y a uthority to a ddress EPA 's 

### concerus r " Th at s aid , any futur e changes in the public p articipation a spects o f t he P rogram should apply pro spe ctivel y and should ha ve n o ef fect o n e xisting permits .

• Under Minor NSR source review, EPA states that the Flexible Permits Program lacks the specific procedures necessary to determine how the source 01' state will calculate the emissions cap, determine the coverage of a Flexible Permit, and establish individual emissions limitations fOI' each site. Furthermore, EPA is not clear on what the process is and how the emissions cap is adjusted for the addition of new facilities. Finally, EPA statcs that the 

### Program needs more detailed monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements to ensure that the emission caps and/or the individual emission limitations are enforceable, The Fle xible Permit is an option al a lternative p ermittin g tool th at may be us ed b y a s ource to autho rize a facil ity , g roup o f facilitie s or an e ntire account si te (i.e. , a s ource) . T here is n othi ng in the Flexible Permit s Program th at s hields a s ource from federal permitting r equ irements , T he emi s sion caps are ba sed on the applicatio n of BA CT and re views of the m odel ing/health eff ects data. T he monit oring, te sting and rec o rdkeeping to ols are u sed to hel p e nsure that a mi nor s ource doe s not b ecome a maj or s ource. F or c ontrol technol ogy p rotection , th e F lexible Permit rul es s tate that the exi sting level o f co ntrol ma y not b e reduc ed fo r a ny fa cilit y, a nd the emi ssions from all facilities contained i n a Fl exible P ermi t are includ ed in eith er a n e mission cap o r an i ndividual em is sion limit ation . 4 o

" 7 4 Fec I. Reg. a t 4 8491. J9 Lett er from Mark Vi ck er y , T CEQ E x e cuti v e D irect or to G ina Mc Ca rthy , A ssistant A dm ini s trator , EPA O ffice o f A ir and R ad iation , O ctober 2 3, 2 009, p . 3 .

. m

L ett er from R . ll yde to 1. Robin son , Au gu st 3 0, 2 007 . 8

### III. N SR R EFORM In th c p ropo s ed ru les, E PA is p roposing d i sapproval o f su bmittals f rom T CEQ to revi se the T ex a s Majo r a nd Minor N SR SIP . Sp ecifically , EPA ha s ex pressed co ncern s w ith T exas rules as thcy rela te to PS D R eview, N onattainme nt R eview, p lan twide app licability l imitation s (P ALs) an d s ta te- is sued S tandard P e rm it s fo r P ollution C on trol Pro jec t s (PC Ps) . TCC s u ppo rts fu ll approval of the s tate's N SR refo rm SI P s ubmittals. E PA's s peci fic co ncerns and TCC' s respo n ses are b elow :

• With regard to PSD review, EPA di sapproves of the state definition ofBA eT. EPA also disapproves of the state's rules because they do not strictly compl y with Clean Air Act requirements that a facility may not be constructed unless it will comply with BACT Iimits. 41 E PA s tates that " the St ate P SD S IP mu st b oth require BACT a nd appl y the f ederal definition of B ACT (o r o ne that i s more s tringent) to be approved. ,,42 In a recent I ctter to E PA, Mr. V ickery committed to EPA that TCE Q will addre ss the definition of BA CT th rough an up coming rulemaking. '? Alth ough TCC believe s that the state 's appli cation of B ACT i s cons i s tent wi th federal requ irements as explain ed in detail below , we s upport this TCE Q initiative to upda te the defini tion of B ACT. T hat said , an y future ch anges in th e B ACT d efiniti on s hould appl y p rospectively and s ho uld h ave n o effect o n e xisting p ermit s . E PA's p roposal to di sapprove this rul e i s b as ed i n p art on fal se di stinction s between wh at it refers to as " PSD BA CT" a nd " Minor NSR BAC T." A ssuming s uch d i stin ction s , E PA concl ude s th at the T e xas rule s fail to clea rly apply the " PSD defi nition o f BACT" to a ll ac tions subjec t to PSD , an d co nverse ly fails to de limit the m inor NS R de finitio n to a cti v itie s tr igger in g o nly m inor N SR. Bu t th ere a re no d isti nctions , legal or p ractic al , in Texas BAC T revie w s . T exas l aw does no t cre ate t wo d ifferent ty pes of p ermits , on e ca lled a m in o r NSR permit a nd one called a PSD penn it. T he re i s o n ly o ne ki nd of pre-construction pe rmi t de s cribed i n th e Texa s C lea n A ir Act, a " preco nstru c ti on pe rmit" und er Te xas H ealth & S afety Code 

### § 382 .05 18. Th e issuance o f a ll s uc h permit s is c onditioned o n u se o f " be s t ava ilable co ntrol technology":

" 74 F e d . Reg . at 4 8472 . " )d. " Le tter fro m M . V ickery to G. M cCarthy , O c tober 23 , 2009 . 9"( b) The co mmissio n s hall gra nt w ithin a r easonable tim e a pe rmit or p ermit a mendme nt to co nstruct or mo dif y a facility if, f rom the i nformation a vailable t o the c ommi ssion, incl uding i nformation pr esented a t a ny hearing h eld und er S ection 382 .056(k), the co mmission find s: ( I) the prop osed f acility for w hich a permit , p ermit a mendment, or a s pecial permit is s ought will u se at lea st the best a vailable contr ol technolo gy, co nsidering the technic al pra cticability and ec onomi c reason ablene ss of reducing o r e liminating th e e missions re sulting fro m the facilit y; a nd (2) n o i ndication th at th e em issions fro m the f acility w ill co ntravene th e intent of thi s c hapter, including p rotection of the publi c's h ealth a nd p hysical p ropcrty.T " On e can sea rch the entire Texas Clean A ir Ac t-w hich is the sole a uthority u nder whic h TCEQ ca n issue any permi ts -a nd find no me ntion ofP SO at a ll; agai n, the govern ing law e stablishes th e ne ed f or BACT for all p ermits, major or min or. And the gove rning sta tute d oes n ot define B ACT beyo nd its ow n terms, leaving su bstantia l degrees of fre edom for TCEQ t o com pel the be st a vailable c ontrol technology. T CEQ' s im plem entin g rul es a lso do not f urther d efine BA CT at a ll, eithe r, oth er th an to emphasize th e need fo r gi ving " consideration .. . to th e technical practicabilit y a nd the econ omic reas onableness o f reducin g or elimi nating e missions f rom the fa cility.,,45 Texas accom plishes the P SO r eviews requ ired by Par t C o f Su btitle I of the fed eral C lean Air Ac t by i ncluding v arious applicability p rovisions in its rul es, but th e o nly ef fect of " triggering" PSO review is to require an i ncrement a nalysis (the "sig nificant d eterioration" review) fo r all pr econs truct ion pe rmits for I'SO projects . Again, BACT reviews a re universal, and do not depe nd o n triggering P SO . (Th is i s one of the g reat s trengths of T exas ' s permitting progra m, no t a weakness). The nature of the BACT r eview does n ' t c hange d epending on w hether th e app lication triggers I'SO : T CEQ d et ermine s B ACT u sing it s 3 -tiered process rega rdless of the s ize o f p roject unde r review . E PA i s co nditioning it s approval on TCEQ ad option o f pre cisely th e s ame definiti on of BA CT th at E PA ha s c hosen . But EPA h as no fo undation f or th at co ndition a s furth er o utlined in the five f ollowing po ints.

" TEX. HEA I : rJ1 &. SAFETY CODE § 382 .05 I 8(b) . "3 0T AC§ 11 6 .1 0(3) . 1 0I. EPA May not Condition Approval ofTcxas 's Permitting Programs on Adherence to Spccific Defin itions SIP a pprova l of a P SD program is co nditioned on acco mplishing s o me ver y gen eral s ta tuto ry o bjectives, as ou tlined in S ection I 6 5(a) o f the federal C lean A ir A ct, includin g mech anisms to en sure th at each propo sed maj or s ource or m odification is s ub jec t to the be st a vailable control 

### techn o logy." Co ngress expressl y 

### left the particular s to ea ch 

### state." Not e ven E PA 's rule s d escribin g its ex pectations f or approv able SIPs mandate ado ption o f the ex act defini tions: Variation s are a ll owe d " if the State s pecifically dem onstrates tha t the s ubmitted definit ion i s m ore s tringent , o r a t least as s tringent, in all respects " as th ose a dopted by E PA .4 8 TCEQ of course h a s made that dem on st ration i n its vario us S IP s ubmitta ls o ver the years , b ut mostl y b y decade s of ac tual B ACT deter minations m ade pur suant to its d efinition . E PA ha s no t identified even o ne TCEQ B A C T de ter mination th a t y ielded an i nadequate re su lt b ecau s e of the d ifferent 

### defi nitions , In fact, E PA ha s a greed th at the TC EQ BA CT review proce ss is perfectly adequ ate . Wh en E PA gr anted T exas 's PS D program complet e S IP approva l in 1 992 , E PA accepted c omp lete exclu sion of the federal c ontrol technology re view provision s (co dified at 40 CFR 52 .210) ):

" [B ]ecause the [Texas A ir Co ntrol Board] cl aimed th at the Texas C lean Air A ct an d the ex isting St ate r egulations hav e provisions f or application o f B ACT a s s tring ent as th e Fe dera l requi remen ts in reviewing the p ermit applicatio n s. T he EPA rev iew of th e T exas C lea n A ir Ac t a nd Regu lation VI ( Sections 11 6 . 3(a)(3) th rough 1 16.3 ( a)(5)) have i ndeed revealed that existi ng TACB permi t require ment s m eet the provi s ion s of the Federal P SD 

### regula tions .. . ,,49 T he fin al rul e approving the Tex as PSD pr ogram a ffirmed that incorporation o f the f ederal cont rol technology r eview p rovision " not nece ss ary f or app roval o f th e T exas Pro gram . ,, 50 2 . Defi nitio ns D o No t Deter mine S tr ingency The s tringency o f B ACT d etermin ations ar e n ot d et ermined by d efinit ion s, a nyway. E v e n th e f ar wo rdier " federa l d efinition " is but a litany of f actors th at go into wh at i s inevitably a 4 . CAA § 165(a)(4) : 4 2 U . S . C . § 7475 (a)(4). "C AA § 1 0 1( a)(3) ; 4 2 U .S .c. § 7401(a) (3). .r s 40 CFR § 51.16 6(b) . 49 54 f ed. Reg . 52823, 5 2824-25 (De c . 2 2 , (989) . 

## '° 5 7 f ed. R eg . 28093 -94 (J une 2 4, 1992). IIh ighly disc retion-laden de termination. A more " spec ific" defin ition, it m ay truly bc argued , h as the e ffec t of be ing less s tringen t , becau s e it limits th e fac tors to bc co nsidered . Abse nt a d efinition of BAC T b eyond its ow n s elf-de s cription, TCE Q i s free to be e ven s tricter than the w ordier f ederal d efinit ion . Ag ain, the pro po sed di s approval fa ils to identi fy e ven o ne d etermination th at ( a) d epended o n the definit ion applied, a nd ( b) y ielded a d etermination le ss s trict th an w ould re sulted f rom appli cation of th e " federal d efinition." 3 . El' A Itself D oes Not Follow the "Federa l Definition" E PA is in a d ifficult p osition to insist o n wo rd-for-word ado ption w hen it do es n ot itself fo llow the federa l defi nition . T he defi nition EPA wo uld impose o n the sta tes is n ot the o ne that Congre ss p re s cribe s. Thc fo llowing s hows the chang es needed to the EPA rule in order to co nform it t o the s tatute : (12) Bes t av ailable co ntrol te chnology mean s a n e missions limitation (i ncluding a v i s ible e mis sio n s tandard) b a s ed o n th e maximum degree of reduction for eac h p ollutant s ubject t o re gulation un der Act w hich wo uld b e em itte d f rom an y p ropo s ed major st ationary so urce o r m ajor m odification w hich the Adm inist rator , on a case - by-case ba sis, taking int o acco unt energy , e nvironmental, and econo mic impa cts a nd o ther costs, determines is ac hievab le f or s uch so urce o r m odification through application of prod uction p roces s es o r ava ilable methods, sy stems, a nd techn iques, i ncluding fu el c leaning or treatment o r innova tive f uel co mbustion t echniques for co ntrol o f suc h p ollutant. In no eve nt s hall application of best availab le control t echnol o gy resul t in emis sio ns of any pollu tant whic h wo uld exc eed the emi ss ion s a llowed b y any applicable stand ard u nder 40 CF R parts 60 a nd 61 . If the Admi ni s trator determines that technological or ec ono mic li mitation s on th e applic atio n o f measurement methodology t o a p art icular e mis s ion s unit wou ld make the imp o siti on o f an e mission s s tandard i nfeasi b le, a des ign, e quipment , work prac tice , o perational s tandard, o r co mbination thereof, ma y be p rescribed i nstead t o satisfy th e r equirement for the application o f be st available co ntro l technology . Such st andard s hall, to the d egree po ssible, se t f orth th e emi ssions r educ tion a chievable b y implemen tation o f s uch d esign, equipment, work practic e or o peration, and s hall p rovide f or co mpliance b y m ean s w hich ac hieve eq uivalent re sults . W hich federal d efinition wo uld EPA like Te xas to follow , the o ne i n its rul e or the one i n its governing statute ? In what way does e ither " federal defi nition" neces sarily require BA CT d etermina tion s any more strict than the Texa s definiti on ?

1 24. Th e P ro pos ed Di sapp roval D raw s o n Di stincti ons W ith out Diff er enc es T he d efin itio n is de si gned to ide ntify relevant factors t hat go into what is ult imately a highly dis c re tion-laden de terminati on . No ma tter t he d efinition , the obj ective is the s a me. And no matter t he de finition s, t he reso urces co nsulted for e ach BA CT determ ination are the s a m e. I n T exa s, fo r exa mple, a ll B A C T de termination s are made u sing it s 3 -tier process , w hich el aborates in detai l how T CEQ m akes th e determinations. All reviews a re b ased o n co n s ideratio n of n ational dete rminations c odified i n the RA CT/BA CT / LAER C leari nghou se, EPA ha s a g reed that t his p roce ss yields re s ult s eq uivalent to i ts top -down ap proac h, w hich it self i s not c omp e lled b y an y defin ition . In b oth ca ses, responsibl e ag enc ies m ake di screti onary determi nati ons ba sed on ag gressive eff o rts to en sure t h at ncw techn ologie s are applied wh en thcy bec ome av ailable to new so urces. Ph arisaical p arsing over defin iti on s doe s not a ccompl ish so und BA CT d eterminations , which in s tead re s ult from good fa ith effort s by re spons ible re gulators . 5 . To the Vel') ' Ext ent Th ere Wer e Differen ces i n Result Ba sed o n Definiti on, E PA W ould be Prohibit ed front Disapprovin g the Definition E PA p re su me s wit hou t proof a d iff erence i n re s ult ar ising o ut of TCEQ ' s B ACT defi nition. B ut , reg a rdle ss , EPA ca nnot e lect to approve th e broa der reach oft hc Texa s p rogram (e .g., applic ation of BACT to a ll so urces) , b ut d i sapprove w hat it perceive s to b e a lesser d efinition o f BA CT. State s are the prima ry a rchitects of t heir i mplementatio n p lans, an d E PA i s not free to ch ange the s tate ' s c hoices b y sele ctive approvals of interrelated e lements ."

s t An unb roken line o f c ases , s ta rt i ng with Bethlehem S teel C o rp . v . Go rsuch, 74 2 F .2d 10 28 (7th Cir. 1984) , holds that the C lean A ir Act , p lacing in the s ta t es the " primary r e s ponsibility" for protecting a i r qu a lit y, doe s not a llow EPA c h ange the s tringency o f th e plan as deve loped by the s tate ; EPA may on ly app rove o r di sapprove wh at th e s tate s ubmits . In o ne ca se re j ect ing EP A's decisio n to approve a sulfur d ioxide limit but not the averagin g co nventions that w ere part of the ru l e, Judge P osner offe red wo rds that co unsel s a gain s t us ing the SIP mac hete wit h which EPA propo ses to h ack ap art T exa s's a ir qu ality perm itting prog ram :

.. . nothing in th e Act or in a ny c ases we have fo und s ug ge st s that the EPA, when a sked to a pprove a revised p lan, c an , without paus ing to decide whet her a limitation in the p lan that its a uthors m ay have thou ght cri tical to its s ound ness h a s a ny mer it a t a ll, ap prove th e p lan minu s th e limitation. The plan might be v astl y better with th an with out th e limitation , an d the ag ency canno t de termine that w ithout exam ining the limitation . Eve n i f it is not vastly better, s ection I t o (a)(3) (A) requires the Administrator to approve a revi sed plan, limitat i on s and a ll, i f he d ete rmin e s that it mee ts the re quirement s o f t he C lean Air Act ; a nd he can not make that d eterminatio n ifhe ref u se s t o eva luate the limitation s . I ndi a na & Mi chigan Elec tric Co . \'. 

## u.s. E nvironmenta l P rote c ti on Agel/cy , 7 33 F .2d 489 , 4 9 1 (7th C ir. 13Ac c ord ingly , thc extent to wh i ch E PA wou ld m ake a ny s ub sta n tive c han g es in T CEQ's permitting p rogra m b y s e lective ly d isapprov i ng its B A CT d efinit ion is the ver y ex tent to w hich it is for bidden t o di s approve it. E PA mu s t e ither ac cept th e p e rmit program or r ejcc t it in it s enti rety, a nd not c ut it to pie ces s o th at it looks like a ran s om note.

• With regard to Nonattainment Review, El' A disapproves the state rules because they require affirmative regulatory action by the EPA before the l-hour ozone major nonattainment NSR requirements come into effect in the Texas I-hour ozonc nonattainment areas . 52 E PA p oi nts to the D . C . C ircui t C o ur t d ecis i on in So u th Coas t Air Q uality Ma na ge m ent Distric t 

### v. E PA, w here the c ourt v acat e d f edera l ru le s tha t wa ived o b lig a tio n s un der th c revo ked I- hour s ta ndard for N SR. 5 3 E PA s tates th at the effec t o f thi s p ortion of th e co urt's rulin g is to re s tore m ajor nonat tainment NSR a pplica bility thre sho ld s an d e mi ssio n o ffsets pur suant to cl a s sifications pr eviously in e ffect for areas de si gnated nonattainm ent f or th e 1- hour o zo n e s ta nd ard.I" In re spon se to th e co urt' s ruling in South Coas t, E PA h as st a ted o n nu merou s occas ions th at it w ould go for ward wit h rul emaking to impl ement th c I-h our oz one requi rement s . " Th erefore, it i s r easonabl e f or T C EQ to under stand that s ome E PA action is n eces s ary b efo re it pro ceed s w ith appropriate rul e ch anges to rein st ate thc major n onattainment N SR ap plicability threshold s a nd e miss ion o ffset requirements , a nd th is i s n ot a ra tiona l b asis up on w hich to ju sti fy d isapproving th e s tate's ru les. • Also with regard to N onattainment Review, E I'A disapprove s o f the Texas rule subm issions because the y are not clear a s to when and wher e an NS R applicability d .. I' 5 6

ctcrnunation app res . E I' A s ta tes th at the C le an Ai r A ct a nd NSR S IP rules require that a n app licab i lit y de termination rega rding w hether Maj or N SR applies f or a p ollutant s hould be b a s ed up on th e attainm ent or non attainm ent d e signation o f thc area in which th e s o urce i s located on th e dat e of is s uanc e o f the Major N SR permit. TCE Q rul e s s tate that th e nonattainmen t NS R requirem ent s a pply o n the p ermit issuance date fo r all facilitie s l ocated i n a nonatt ainmcnt 1 9 84 ) ; see a lso Co n ce rned C itizens of Bridesburg v, EPA , 836 F .2 d 77 7 , 7 8 \ (3 d C ir. 198 7) (" Beca use the s la t es h ave pr imary re spo ns ibi lity for achievi ng ai r quality s ta ndards , the EP A ha s limited authority to reje ct a S IP.") . " 74 F ed . R eg . at 48 473 . " 472 F .3d 882 (D .C. Cir. 20 06) , reh 'g de nied 48 9 F .3d 12 45 (2007) . " 74 Fed . Reg . at 48 473 . " 7 3 Fed . R eg . 22896 , 22 897 (Apri l 28 , 2 008) ; 7 3 F ed. R eg. 3 8353, 38354 (July 7 , 20 08) ; 74 Fed . Reg . 2936 , 294 \ (J anuary \ 6 , 2 00 9 ); 74 F ed . Reg . 25 \53 , 25 1 54 (M ay 2 7 , 2009) . "7 4 Fed. R eg . a 14 8473. 14a rea o n t he ef fectiv e da te o f the r ules . 57 For th o s e fa cilities l ocated i n a rea s that a rc d esig nated nonattainment area s afte r th e effective da te of t he rule s, the non att ainmcnt NSR requi rement s appl y t he day t he application is admi ni stratively comp lete . The day t he a pplication is determined to be admini strativel y c omp lete occur s pr ior to the is s uanc e da te of the perm it. Therefore, the sta t e's rule s arc more s tri ngent than the feder al rule s in thi s regard.

• E PA s ta tes that it ha s m an y co nce rns with TCE Q 's implem entati on of th e fe der al P AL p ro gr am. F irs t, E PA di sapp roves th e Texas S IP s ub mit tals be cau se th ey fail to limit a pplica bility o f a P AL onl y t o an exi stin g maj or stationar y so urce. i" Federa l rule s sta te PALs are ava ilable o nly for e xi sting m ajor s tationary so urces b ecause they ar c ba sed on a source 's act ual c mis sio n s. i " TC EQ rules s p ecify tha t any applicatio n for a PAL p ermit or a P AL p ermit am endme nt must i nclude calc ulation s of t he ba sel ine ac tual emi ssion s w ith s uppo rti ng 

### doc ument a tion .i" A new s ta t ionary so urce wou ld not h ave thi s doc umentation to submi t. It i s clear that t he sta te's ru les limit th e app licab ility of a P AL to a n ex isti ng ma jor s tationary s ource.

• S econd, E PA rejects thc state's PAL S IP submittals becaus e there ar e no pr ovi sions that relate to PAL re-openin gs, nor is there a mandate that failure t o u sc a m onit orin g sys te m that meets the 

### federal requirem ent s rend ers the PAL in valid . 61 A PAL issued un der state rules is e ffective for 10 year s. 6 2 The s tate 's ru les prov ide for the reva lidation of the da ta used to e stab li sh the PAL poll utant at lea st once ev ery five years . " T he re are al so regulator y procedu re s in place for the amend ment s or a lteratio n s of a PAL. M F inally, the s tate' s ru le s s pecify that a so urc e's PAL mo ni toring sy stem that utili zes a C EMS to monitor PAL pollut ant emi ssions mu st comply with applicable s pecificatio ns f ound in40 C r R P art 60 , Appendix B . 65

"30 TA C § 11 6.150(0)(1) . " 7 4 F ed . Reg . a t 4 8474 . , . 4 0 C FR § § 51.1 6 5(0 (1)(i) a nd 5 1.166(w)( I)(i). 60 3 0 T AC § 1 16.1 82(2) . 61 7 4 F ed . R eg . 0 148474 . 62 3 0 TA C § 116 .186(b)(7) . OJ 3 0 TA C § 1 16.186(b) (9) . 6 1 3 0 TA C § 1 16 .1 9 2 . 6S 3 0 TA C § 11 6.186( e )(2 )8 )(I ) . 1 5• Third, EPA disapproves the Texas SIP submittals because the Texas rules provide for an emissions cap that may not acconnt for all of thc emissions of a pollutant at the major stationar y source. According to EPA , inclnsion of all thc emi s sions nnits subject to the enforc eable PAL limit is es sential . EPA statcs that the Texas submittal is unci em ' as to whether the PAL would apply to all of thc emission units at the entire major station ary source and therefore appears to be less stringent than the federal rulcs . 6 6 TCE Q's PA L rule s clearl y s tate th at "t he pl ant-wide ap plicability limit ( PAL) wi ll impose a n an nual e missio n limitat ion in to ns per yea r, th at is enf orceable f or a ll faci lities included in t he PAL.,, 67 T he PA L pro gram is not co mparable to the Texas F lexible Perm it Pro gram, wh ich may ap ply to onl y c ertain f acilities at a so urc e ,

• Fourth, EPA rejects thc public participation aspect of thc state's PAL progrllln . 68 TCEQ Ex ecutive D irector Mark V ickery h as a lready ind icated to E PA th at h e w ill pre sent to the co mmission i n December 20 09 a proposed public participation rul emaking as perm itted under ex isting s tatutory authority to addr ess E PA 's concern s.f" Th at sa id, a ny futur e c hanges in the publi c participation as pects o f th e Progr am s hould apply pro spe ctively a nd s hould have n o ef fect o n exi sting p ermits.

• EI' A also states that the term "ba selin e actual emissions" does not require thc inclusion of emissions resulting from startups, shutdowns and malfunctions. Further, definition omits reference to the "average ratc.,, 70 T CEQ does n ot regulate m alf unction em i ss ions . Rather , T CEQ is i n th e p rocess of a uthorizi ng ma intenance, sta rtup a nd s hutdown (M SS) emissions f or c hemica l pl ant s . Unde r T CEQ 's rul es , bas eline ac tual e mis sions include em issions even ts o r e missi o ns h i s torica lly exem pted u nder 30 T AC C hapter 101 to the exte nt they h ave been authori zed or are being a uthorized. " Th ese em issions i nclude MSS emissio ns t o the ex tent the y are verifiab le . MSS e mi ssions th at are not verifiab le are treated as unau thorized and h ave a b a s eline emissions ra te o f z ero. The refore, it ap pears that in this regard , the s ta te's p rogram is at lea st a s str ingent as the federal program.

66 7 4 f ed. Reg. a148474 . 6 7 3 0 TA C § 11 6 . 186(a) . 68 74 fed . Reg . a t 484 74. 69 Letter f rom Mark V ickery , TCEQ Executive Director to G ina McCarlhy , Assis tant Admini strator, E PA O ffice of A ir and Radiatio n, Oc tober 23 , 2009 , p . 3 . 70 74 f ed . R eg. at 48475 . 71 30 TA C § 1 16.12(3)(E). 1 6T he ra te T CEQ u s e s t o dete rmine b a sel ine act ual emis sio ns i s not inconsi stent with federal ru les s i mp ly because th e term " avera g e " is o mitted . A c omplete re a ding o f the Te xas ru les re veal s that a n average e mi ss ion rate i s bein g u s ed t o determin e th e ba se line a ctual e mi ss ion ratc . 72

• EPA statcs that the definition of the term "facility" is not clcar. 73 Sp eci fically , EPA n otes that " [t]he s ubmitted NN SR non-PAL rul es do not e xplicitl y limit the d efiniti on o f ' fa cility ' to a n 'e mi ss ion s uni t' as d o the s ubmitted PSD n on-PAL rul c s. 74 Under the s tate's s tatutes a nd ru le s , the t erm " facil ity" i s d efined a s " a d i sc rete or identifiable s truc ture , d ev ice , i tem , eq u ipment , or enclo sure that c o nstitu tes or c on tain s a s t atio na ry s ource, includin g ap purten ances ot her than emiss ion c ontro l equip ment. A mi ne , qu arry, w ell te st o r r o ad is not c ons idere d to b e a 

### facil ity .' : " T he d efinition of " facil ity" i s s o bro ad that i s requires ev ery p o ssi ble s ourc e of a ir co nt a minant s to o btain s ome type o f ap prova l fro m T CEQ. U nder th e s tate's definiti ons for the Title V Federal Operating Prog ram , the state s imilarly d efine s the term " emi ss i o ns uni t " as " a di screte o r iden tifiable s tructure, de vice, item , e quipment, or e nclosure th at con sti tutes or co ntain s a p oint of o rigin of a ir p ollutant s, including 

### app urtenancc s.?" T hu s, the term " faci lity" i s equ ivalent to th e term " emissio ns 

### un it. "

• Finally, EPA expressed concerns with th e statc's Standard Permit for PCP s. Specifically, EPA states that the PCP Standard Permit is not limited in its applicability to a single category of indu strial sources, but to a broad class of pollution control teehniquc s at all source categories. According to EPA, an individual Standard P ermit must be limited to a single s ource 

### category.**~P** A also expresses its concern that thc rules allow for the TCEQ Executive Director to exercise his di scretion in making case specific determinations in individual cases in lieu of generic enf orceable requirements . " T he S ta ndard Pe rmit i s a min or N SR p ermitting to o!' Sim ilar to a ll o ther min or N S R p erm itti ng pro gram s , th e s tate ha s w ide di s cretio n in it s implem en tation of the prog ra m .
72 3 0 T AC § 11 6 . 12(3) . 7J 74 F ed . Re g . at 48475.
" Id . "3 0 T AC § 11 6. 10(6); T EX. HEALTH & SAFEWCO DE § 382 .003(6) . 76 3 0 T AC § 12 2 . 10 ( 8) . 77 74 Fe d . Reg . at 4 8475 . 1 7There i s no fed eral requireme nt th at li mits the u sc of a Sta ndard Permit to a s ingle so urce c ategory. T he on ly s tatute that gov erns E PA approval of th e St andard Pe rmit a s a SIP revi sion is the f oll owin g ge neral ob ligation und er th e fede ral C lean A ir A ct: "E ach [SIP] s hall

- . . . (C) include a program to pr ovide for ... regulation o f the m odification and con stru ction o f a ny s tationary s ource w ithin the are as co vered by the pl an as n ecessary to ass ure that national a mbient air qua lity sta ndards ar e ac hieved, includin g a p ermit p rogra m as . d 

### i C I D ,,78 reqUIre 111 p arts 

### anc ... EPA docs no t a nd c annot ques tion th at T CEQ's m inor NSR prog ram, including the Sta ndard Pe rmit fo r PCPs, prov ides for the reg ulation of a ny sta tionary source as necessary to assure that th e NAAQ S ar c a chieved. Furt hermore, Pa rts C (P SD) a nd D ( nonattairunent NS R) are n ot impli cated because P CP S tandard Permits are ex pressly m ade un available to th e m aj or so urces a nd m a jor m odifications that are s ubject to P arts C a nd D. Finally, th ere is a lso no EP A rul e th at g overns approvable Stand ard Permits . EPA 's p roposed di sapprov al fai ls to i d e ntif y a pl ausib le rea son why the PCP Stand ard Permit fails to m eet fe deral requir ements. M oreover, the di scretion provided t o the T CEQ Exec utive Dir ector und er the s tate's ru les is int ended to p rovide the Exec utive Di rector the flexibility t o ref use to au thorize a S tandard Pe rmit i n those cases wh ere he dete rmines there are health e ffects co ncerns o r th e p otential to excee d the NAAQS. 79 The d iscretion granted the Exec utive Director i n th is respect i s an importan t per mitting tool that i s ne cessary t o effec tively pro tect th e e nvironment and is not a sound basis for di sapproval of this m inor NSR permitting t ool. IV . QUALIFIEO FACILITIES F inally, E PA h as propo sed to di sapprove re v i sions to th e SIP s ubmitted by T CEQ th at re late t o the Mod ification of E xisting Q ualified Faci litie s b ecause the Pro gram does n ot m eet th e NSR SIP requirements nor do es it m eet th e N SR SIP requirem ents f or a s ubstitute M ajor N SR S IP revis ion . E PA a lso exp resses ge neral c oncern th at it i s n ot cle ar th at the Qualified Faci lities P rogram is i ntended to appl y o nly to m inor so urces, TCC supports full approval of the Texas Qua lified Facili ties Program . Sim ilar to the Flexible Permi ts Program, the Q ualified Facil ities Program is not i ntended to sh ield a so urce from m ajor

78 CAA § II O(a)(2)(C) ; 42 U .S . C. § 7 41O(a)(2)(C). 79 30 T A C § 116 .617(3)( B) . 1 8NSR per mitting r equirements. Sim ilar to the Flex ible Permits Program, the Q ualified Faci lities P rogram is a ro bust, f edera lly enforcea ble p rogram. Au thorized by the Texas Clean A ir Ae t, 80 the s ta te's Q ualified Facil ities Progra m promotes flexib ility and allows sources t o m ake cer tain ty pes of c hanges wit hout triggering f ederal NS R p ermitting r equirement s. If f ederal NSR is triggered, a fac ility can not be a q ualified facility. The definition o f a qu alified fac ility m akes it cl ear that a q ualified facilit y is a n ex isting 

### facility." U nder T CEQ's ru les, a q ualified faci lity ma y m ake a ph ysical change in o r c hange the o peration of that f acility as long a s th e change d oes n ot result in a net i ncrease in a llowable e missions of a ny air co ntaminant a nd do es no t res ult in th e e mission of a ny a ir c ontaminant no t previously em itted. Add itionally, the fa cility must be u sing e quipment at least as effect ive as the BACT req uired by the com mi ssion.V EPA outlined the following concerns with the state's Qualified Facilities Program, and TCC's res ponses follow :

• EPA s tates that the Qualifi ed Facilitie s Pro gram i s not clearl y limited to Min or N SR , the Pr o gram has no 

### re gulatory provision s c learly prohibitin g the use of the Pro gram to circumvent the Major N SR S IP requirements, and the Pr og ram d ocs not require that first an applicability determination must b e m ade whether th e construction or modification is subject to Major NSn, 83 TCC views this cr iticism as lacking merit. The Qualifie d Fac ilities Progra m is a m inor NSR program , TCEQ 's rule s clearly requi re sources making cha nges u nder the Prog ram to submi t specific documentation , includi ng "sufficient i nformation as nece ssary to s how that the project will comply with 

### § 1 16 .1 50 and 

### § 116 .151 of this title (relat ing to Nonat tainmen t Review) and 

### §§ 1 16.160-116 .163 of this ti tle (rela ting to Preventio n of S ignificant Deterioration Review) and wit h Subc hapter C of this chapter ( relating to H azardous Air P ollutants: Regu lations Govern ing Co nstructed or Recons tructed Major So urces (FCAA 

### § 11 2(g) , 4 0 CFR P art 63)).,,84 Furthermore, TCEQ's rul es a lso s tate th at nothing in the rul es govern ing the Program sha ll limit the applicability of a ny fe deral 

### re quirement ."

.0 TEX . H EALTH & SAFETY COD E § 382 .0512 (2009) . 81 3 0 TA C § 116 .10( 16). 82 30 TAC § 1\6 .IO(lI)(E) . " 7 4 Fed . Reg . at 48451-48452. "30TAC § 116.117(a)(4) . "30 TAC § 1 16.117(d). 19• In th e proposal , EPA r equ ests comm ent on " whether its und erstanding of Texa s law is correct for the definition of 'facility. " , 86 Ac cordi ng to E PA, " the St ate u ses a ' dual definiti on ' for the t erm ' fac ilit y.' It is o ur und erstanding o f State law, th at a 'f acility' ca n be a n 'emis sions unit ,' i.e. , any p art o fa stati onary so urce that emit s o r m ay have the p otential to emit an y a ir c ontaminant. A ' facility ' a lso c an be a p iece o f equipm ent , which is s maller th an an 'e missions unit .' A ' facilit y' can be a ' major s tationary s our ce' as de fined b y Fede ral l aw. A ' facility' un der St ate la w ca n be m ore th an o ne ' major s tationary so urce. ",87 Un der the sta te's sta tutes and rules, the term "fac ility" i s defined as "a d iscrete o r identifiable st ructure , de vice, item, equipment, o r enclosure th at co nstitutes or con tains a statio nary s ource, i nclud ing appurte nances othe r than e mis sion co ntrol equipme nt. A mi ne , quar ry, w ell test or roa d i s n ot co nsid e red to be a faeility .,, 88 T he d efinition o f " facility" i s so broad th at is requires e very p ossible sou rce of ai r co ntaminants to ob tain some type of approva l from TC EQ. Und er the s tate 's definiti ons for the Ti tle V Federal Operating Pr ogram, the stat e s imilarly defin es the ter m " emissions u nit" as " a di screte o r i dentifiable s tructure, device , item, e quip ment, o r enclo sure that co nstitutes o r co ntains a p oint of origin of a ir p ollutants , inclu ding appurtenances .t'f" T hus , the term " fac ility" is equi valent t o th e term " emis sions u nit " f or p urposes of th e Qua lified F acilitie s Prog ram.

• EPA criticizes the Qualifi ed Facilities Program because it doc s not include a requirement to make Major N SR applicability determination s based on actual emissions and on emi ssions increases a nd decreases ( nett ing) that occur within a major stationary source. 90 TCEQ's rul es s tate th at in o rder to mak e a ch ange at a qualifi ed f acility, the owne r o r op erator mu st demonstrate that the chan ge does n ot r esult in a net increase in a llowable e missions of a ny a ir c ontaminant pr eviously a uthorized unde r sta te m inor s ource re view . " Pe rson s m aking chan ges to a qu alified fac ility mu st co mply with a ll requiremen ts r elatin g to d ocumentation a nd not ification o f c hanges t o Q ualified F acilities a nd ru les re lating to p re86 74 Fed . Reg . at 4 8455 . 87 74 F ed . Reg . a t 4 8455 . " 30 TAC § 1t6 .10 (6); T EX . H EAJ:I'H & SAFET Y COil E § 382 .00 3(6) . 89 30 TA C § 122. 10(8). 90 74 F ed . R eg . at 48 4 59 . 9130TA C § 1 16 . 11 6(e)(t ) . 

### 20change q ualificat ion .Y Furthermore, the ru les state that the ex isting lev el of c ont rol m ay n ot b c l essened fo r a q ualifi ed fac ili ty.93 The p rogram is n ot c ircumventing a ny fe deral requirem ents fo r maj or sta tionary so urces.

• Under the Qnalified Facilities 

### Program, EPA also proposes to disapprove the definition ofIlACT. 9 4 EPA s tates that " the S tate PSO SIP must b oth require BA CT a nd apply the federal d efiniti on of BACT (o r o ne th at i s m ore s tringent) to b e 

### approved.t'" In a recent letter to E PA , M r. Vi ckery co mmitted t o E PA th at TC EQ w ill address the defin ition of B ACT throu gh a n u pcom ing rul emaking.f" Al though TCC be lieves th at th e s tate's a pplication o f B ACT i s c on s istent w ith fede ral requi rements as e xplained i n detail b elow, w e s u pport th is TC EQ ini tiative to up date th e d efiniti on of B ACT. Tha t sai d, a ny f uture c hanges i n t he B ACT d efinition s hou ld apply pros pec tively and s hou ld h ave n o e ffect o n ex isting p ermi ts. EP A's pr oposal to di s approve th is rule i s b ased in p art o n fal se di stinction s bet ween what it refer s to as " PSO BA CT" an d " Minor NSR BA CT." As sumin g s uch di stinction s, E PA conclud es th at the Texa s rul es fail to clearly apply the " PSO definiti on of BACT " to a ll a cti on s s ubject to PSO , a nd co nversely fa ils to de limit the min or N SR definition t o a ctivitie s tri g gerin g o nly mi nor N SR . B ut th ere ar e n o d istinctions, le gal o r pr actical , in Texas B ACT re views, Texas l aw does not c reate two d i ff erent t ype s of penn its , one called a m inor NS R pe rmit a nd o ne called a P SO perm it. T here is o nly one kind of pr e -cons truction pe rmit d escri bed i n the Texas Clea n A ir Ac t, a "preco ns tructio n p ermit " u nder T exas Healt h & S afety Code § 3 82.0518 . T he i ssuance of a ll s uch p erm its is co nditioned o n u se of " bes t av ailable co ntrol techn ology" :

" ( b ) Th e c ommi ssion s hall g rant within a r eas onable time a pe rm it o r permit am endment to co nstruct or m odify a fac ility if, from th e in formation avail able to the commi ssion, includin g inf ormati on pre sented at an y hearing h eld under S ection 3 82.056(k), t he co mmission find s: (I) the p roposed f acility fo r w hich a p erm it, p ermit a mendment , or a s pec ial p ermit i s so ught w ill u se a t l ea s t the best ava ilable co ntrol technology,

91 30 TAC § 116 .116 (e)(4) . 9J 30 TAC § 1 16 .116(e)(8) . " 74 Fed . Reg . at 4 8463. cs J d. 96 L etter fro m M . V ickery to G. McCarthy , Oc tober 23 ,2009. 2 1co nsidering the techn ical practicability a nd e conomic rea son ablene ss of re ducing o r elimin ating the e missions res ulting from the facilit y; a nd (2 ) n o i ndication th at the emi ssions f rom the f acility w ill c ontravene th e int ent of thi s ch apter, includin g protecti on o f th e public' s health a nd ph ysical propcrt y.' .97 One c an s earch the entir e Tex as C lean Air Act

- which is the s ole authority under which TC EQ can iss ue any perm it s-and find no menti on of PSD at all ; ag ain, the governing l aw e stablishes the need for BA CT f or all permit s, major or mino r. And the governin g s tatute d oes not d efine BA CT beyond it s own t erms, le aving s ubstantial d egrees o f f reedom fo r TCEQ to co mpel th e b est ava ilable c ontrol t echnology . T CEQ' s impl ementing rul es a lso d o no t fu rther defi ne BA CT at a ll, ei ther, o ther th an to em phasize th e nee d fo r g iving "co nsideration . .. to the t echnical practicability a nd the economic reason ablene ss of r educing or eli minating emiss ions f rom the f acility.' ,98 T exa s accom plishes th e P SD r eviews required by Part C o f Sub title I o f the f edera l C lean Air A ct b y includin g v arious a pplicability provi sions 

### in its rules , but th e o nly effe ct o f " triggering" PSD review i s t o require an i ncrement analysis (the "s ignificant deteri oration" review) fo r all precon struct ion permit s for PSD proje cts. Again , BA CT reviews a re univer sal, a nd do not dep end o n triggering PSD . (Th is i s on e o f th e g reat strengths of T exas's p ermitting pro gram, no t a weaknes s) . T he n ature of the B ACT review d oesn 't ch ange d ep ending on wh ether the ap plication triggers PSD: TCEQ de termines BA CT u sing its 3 -tiered p rocess rega rdless o f the s ize o f p roject u nder review. EPA is co nditioning it s approval o n T CEQ adoption of pre ci s ely the sa me d efinition of BACT that EPA ha s c hosen . B ut EPA has no fo undation for tha t co ndition as fur ther o utlined in the five fo llowing po ints. 1. EPA May not Condition Approval of Texas's Permitting Programs on Adherence to Specific Definitions SIP ap proval o f a PSD pro gram i s conditioned o n a ccomplishing so me ve ry g eneral s tatutory o bjectives, as outlined in Sec tion I 6 5(a) o f the federal C lean Air Act , includ ing m echanisms to e nsure that e ach p roposed maj or so urce or m odification i s s ubject to th e be st ava ilable c ontrol tec hnology.f" Co ngress ex pressly left the p articulars t o eac h s tate. 100 No t e ven EPA's r ules de scribing its expec tations for approvab le S IPs ma ndate adop tion of the exac t

97 T EX . H E , \I.TH & SAFETY COD E § 382 .0518 (b) . oa 30 TAC § 116 .10(3) . 99 C AA § 1 65(0)(4) ; 42 U.S .c. § 7 475(0)(4) . 100 C AA § 10 1(0)(3); 4 2 U .S .C . § 740 1(0)(3) . 

### 22de finitions: Var iations are allowed " i f the Sta te specific ally d emonstrate s that the s ubmitted defin ition is m ore s tringent , or at lea s t a s s tringe nt, in a ll res pects" a s tho se adop ted by E PA. 10I TCEQ of cour se has made that demon s tration i n i ts var iou s SIP 

### s ubmittal s over the ye ars, but mo stly by decade s o f actual BACT deter minations made pur suant to its definition . E PA ha s not identified even one T CEQ BA CT de termination that yielded an inadequate resu lt becau se of the different defin it ions. I n fact , EPA h as agree d that the TCE Q BA CT review process is perfeet ly adequate. When EPA g ranted Te xas 's P SD progra m co mplete S IP approval i u 1992 , EPA a ccepte d complete e xclus ion of the federa l con trol tec hn o logy review provisions (codified at 

### 40 C FR 52.2 10)) : 

### "[Bjecause th e [Texas Ai r Co ntrol Board] claimed that the Texa s C lean A ir Ac t a nd the ex isting S tate regulations h ave provi sions f or ap plication of BA CT as s tri nge nt as the Federa l req uir ement s in r eviewing th e perm it a pplications. T he EPA rev iew of th e Tex as C lean A ir Act a nd Re gulation 

### VI (Sec tion s I l 6.3(a)(3) through 116.3(a)(5)) h ave i ndeed revea led th at e xisting TACI3 pe rmit r equirements meet the pro vision s of the Federa l PSD 

### I · ,, 102 reg u a tions.. . T he fina l rul e approving the Texas PS D program a ffirmed th at in corporation of the fed eral con trol tec hnology revi ew provis ion " not necessa ry fo r a pprova l of th e Te xas Prog ram. ,, 103 2 . Definitions Do Not Det ermin e S tri ngency T he s tringency of B ACT de t e rmination s are not de termined b y de finition s, anyway . Even the far wo rdier " f e dera l defin ition " is but a litany of fac tors tha t go i nto w hat i s inevit ably a hi gh ly di scretion -lade n d eterminati on . A more "specific" d efinition, it m ay truly be argued , h a s the effect of b eing les s s tringe nt , because i t limi ts the factor s to be c on sidered . Ab sent a definition of B ACT beyo nd i ts own self -de scription , TCEQ is free to be even s tricter than the w ordier federal defin ition. Aga in , the propose d dis approval fails t o identify even o ne determ ination t hat (a) depeuded on the defini tion applie d , a nd ( b) yielded a de term ination le ss stric t than would re su lted f rom appl icat ion of the " federal definitio n ."

1 0 ' 4 0 e FR § 51.166(b) . 10

2 54 Fed . Reg. 5282 3, 52824-2 5 (Dec . 22, 1989). 

## '0' 57 Fed . Reg . 2 8093

-94 (J une 24 , 1992). 233. EPA Itself Docs Not Follow the "Federal Definition" E PA is in a diffi cult position t o in sist o n wo rd-for-word adoption when it does not itself follow the federal definition . The definit ion EPA wou ld impo se o n the states is not the one that C ongress prescribes. T he following s hows the changes needed t o the E PA rule in order to conform it to the s tatute: (12) B est available control technology means an emis sions limi tation (including a visible emi ssion standard) based on the maximum degree of reduction for each p ollutant s ubject to regulation und er Act which would be emitted from any propo sed major stationar y s ource or major modification which the Admini strator , on a case-b y-case ba sis, taking into a c count energy, en vironmenta l , and eco nomic impact s and other co sts, determines i s achievable for such source o r mod ification throu gh application of production proces ses 0 1' available method s , system s, and techn iques , including fuel cleaning 01' treatment 01' inno vative fuel c ombustion techniques fo r control of such p ollutant. In no event s hall application of best available control technolog y re sult in emissions of an y pollutant which w ould exceed t he emissions allowed by a ny applicable s tandard under 40 CrR part s 60 and 61. If t he Admin istrator determines tha t technological 01' ceo nomic limitations on the appl ication of measurement methodology to a particular emissions uni t w ould make the impo sition of a n emissions standard infeasible. ia design , equipment, work practice , operational s tandard, o r combina tion thereof , may be prescribed in stead to satisf y the requi rement for the application of best availab le control technology. Such standa rd shall , to the degree possible , s et forth the emissions reduction achievable by i mplementation of such de s ign , equipment , w ork practic e or operation , and s hall provide for compl iance by means which achieve equivalent resul ts . Whi ch fede ral de fi nition would EPA like Te xas to follow , the one i n its rule 01' the one in its go verning st atute? In what way does either " federal definition " necessarily requi re BA CT det erminat ions any more strict than the Te xas definition ? 4. The Pro pose d Di s ap pr oval D raws o n D istin cti on s W itho ut Diff e renc es The definition i s designed to identif y relevant factors tha t go i nto w hat is ultimately a high ly discretion -laden determination. No matter t he defini tion , the objective i s the same. And no matter the definitions , the re source s consulted for each BACT determination are the same . In Texa s , for e xamp le , a ll BA CT determ inations are mad e u sing its 3 -tier proce ss, which e laborates in deta il how TCEQ m akes the de te rminations. All reviews are based on con sideration of national dete rminations codified in th e RACT /BA CT /LAER C learinghou se . E PA has agreed that th is proc ess yield s result s equivalent t o it s top-down approach , wh ich 2 4itself is not c ompelled b y a ny defini tion. I n both ca ses, responsibl e a gencies make di scretionary determinations based on aggressive efforts to ensure that new technologies arc applied w hen the y become available to ne w s ources . Phari saical pa rsing over definitions d ocs not accompli sh s ound BA CT determination s, which i nstead re sult from g ood faith effort s b y respon sible regulator s. S . To the Very Extent There Were Differences in Result Based on Definition, EPA Would bc Prohibited from Disapproving the Definition EPA pre sumes without pro of a difference in re sult arising ou t ofT CEQ ' s B ACT d efinition. But , regardle ss, E PA c annot e lect to approve the broader re ach o f the Texa s pro gram (e . g., application of BA CT to all sour ces), but disapprove w hat it percei ves to be a les ser definition of BACT . St ates are the p rimary architect s of the ir implementation p lans, and EPA is not free t o change the state 's c hoices by s elective approv als o f interrelated elem ents, 104 Accordingly , the e xtent to which EPA wo uld mak e any s ubstantive chan ges in T CEQ 's p ermittin g prog ram by s electively di sapprovin g its BACT definition i s the very ex tent to which it i s forbidden to di sapprove it. E PA must either accept th e permit program or reject it in it s entir ety, and not cut it to pieces so that it looks like a ransom note .

1 01 A n unbroke n l ine o f c ases , st arting w ith Be thlehem S teel C orp. v. Go rsuch, 74 2 F. 2d 10 28 (7th C ir. 1984) , hold s

. that th e C lean Air Ac t , pla cing in the s tates th e "p rim ary re spon sibilit y" fo r p rotecting air q uality, do es no t all ow

E PA c hange th e strin gen cy of the p lan as d eveloped b y th e s tate; EPA may o nly approve or d isapprove what the s tate s ubmits. I n o ne ca se rej ecting EPA 's deci sion to approv e a su lfur dio xide limit but n ot th e av era ging con ven tion s tha t wer e part o f the rule, J udge P o sner offer ed word s that c ounsels a gainst u sing t he StP machete w ith whi ch EPA proposes to hack apart Texa s ' s air q uality permitting pro gram :

. . . n othin g in th e A ct or in an y ca ses w e ha ve fo und su ggests that the E PA, when a sked to appro ve a revised plan , c an, wi thout pausin g to d ecide w hether a limitation in th e plan th at its a uthors ma y ha ve thou ght c ritical t o its s oun dnes s ha s an y merit at a ll, appr ove th e pl an minu s the limit ation . Th e p lan mi ght be v astly b etter w ith than w ithout the lim itation , a nd th e age ncy cann ot d et ermin e th at with out ex amining the limitati on. Eve n if it is no t va stly b etter , se cti on t 10 (a)(3)(A) re quires the Admini strat or to approve a revised plan , limit ation s and all , if he d etermines that it me ets th e req uirements of th e C lean Air Act ; an d he c annot mak e that determinati on if h e refu ses t o evalua te the lim itations . I ndiana & Michigan Electric Co. v. U. S. Environmental Protection Agen cy, 733 F .2d 489 , 49 1 (7 th C ir. 1984); s ee a lso Conc erned Cit izens of Brides burg v. EPA , 8 36 F .2d 77 7, 781 (3 d C ir. 1987 ) ( "Be eause the s tates have prima ry respon sibilit y fo r a chieving air q uality s tandards, th e E PA ha s limited auth ority to rej ect a SIP ." ) . 25• EPA proposes to approve the definitions of "grandfuthered facility," "maximum allowable emissions ratc table," and "ncw facility."I05 TCC supports EPA's approval of these definitions in the Texas rules. V . CONCLUSION In conclusion, TCC supports full EPA approval of the Texas Flexible Permits Program , the Texas Qualified Facilities Program and the SIP submittals related to NSR Reform . The SIP revisions submitted to EPA by TCEQ over the last 15 years serve as a critical component to a robust and legally-enforceable Texas air permitting program . Texas should not be punished for EPA's failure to uphold its legal obligation to evaluate and approve the state's SIP revision submittals within the statutory period outlined in the federal Clean Air Act. Throughout the proposed disapprovals, EPA offers little or no legally justifiable reason to disapprove these Texas air permitting programs . This is unfortunate given the enormity of EPA's proposed action and the impact that it will have on this country's largest industrial state. The SIP revision submittals related to these programs are at least as stringent as the applicable federal requirements and should be fully approved.

10' 74 Fed. Reg . at 48463. 

### 26